Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'APUG.ORG's "Gray" Area Subforum -NOW HYBRIDPHOTO.C' started by PeterDendrinos, Dec 23, 2005.
Has anyone any experience with this critter? What do you think
From what I read about it, it seems to have the same specifications as the Epson 4990, which is much cheaper.
I need the larger size scanning area.
You may (or at least I would) wish to look at this:
Or if you can swing it one of these (used): creo eversmart or maybe Jazz(?) or Smart(?) These were the unchallenged kings of XL flatbeds. Kodak bought Creo...
But do you need 3200 dpi at the laregest scan size?
If not, consider a Microtek 9800XL or Epson 1640XL, which scan at 1600dpi. Or a Powerlock 2100 at 800 dpi.
I have this scanner. we use it for flat bed scans of prints to then go to very large mural prints . Very limited use for negatives or trans as we use a flextight for that kind of scan.(But with that said I cannot comment on the quality expectations from neg or trans as our use is limited, so far).
The large murals from prints are exceptional quality and this is one of our primary uses and reasons for this scanner.
We all agree here that the scanner is very good and with the larger surface for scanning we find it very useful.
I am about to scan my whole portfolio next week with it and will have a better idea on its capabilities.
sorry for the delay in responding, for some reason after my last post i never saw this thread reappear.
I wish to do 3 things with this scanner. 1, scan my 11x14 prints to my web site. 2, scan my prints to be able to offer buyers a cheeper option than a print. i could offer them a digital copy, and thirdly i would like to play with scanning negatives.
Ok i just figured out why i couldent see them in the forums. I guess it helps to read stuff.
If you are looking for something to put to the web, the Epson 4990 works fine; all the images I have uploaded in the past couple of days have been with this scanner. It will handle negatives/transparencies up to 8x10. The price is much lower.
FWIW, I wouldn't even attempt to scan a print, it is just too difficult to get it right, especially if you don't know much about scanning. I also wouldn't offer a cheaper option, using this route. These flatbed scanners just aren't up to getting a sharp enough image to make it worth the time and effort. If you want a cheaper option, just make smaller prints on VC paper, or get the negative professionally scanned on an Imacon or drum scanner.